Rawlsian Approach to Fairness in a Democratic Society

Rawls' Idea of Justice as Fairness

Task:

When Rawls writes this, he is arguing that the concept of “fairness” should be viewed in a practical and political light. In other words he asks, in a democratic society, what would constitute a fair distribution of resources? He rejects the notion that discussions of fairness should center on metaphysical definitions of such or on philosophical debates over virtues or general conceptions of morality. He says, “…as a practical political matter no general moral conception can provide a publicly recognized basis for a conception of justice in a modern democratic state,” (Rawls, 1985, pg 225). The reason for this is that Rawls concedes that there will never be societal agreement on philosophical theories of morality or metaphysical definitions of fairness. Instead, he asserts that for practicality’s sake, using a veil of ignorance (where one releases all personal biases) to determine what is just is the only way to fairly distribute justice.

I agree with Rawls that we should look for a political conception of justice in a democratic society rather than a metaphysical one. It is true that theories of distributive justice that are based on hierarchy, libertarianism and meritocracy are based on moral arbitrariness – that is on the basis of chance. In reality, a democratic society can never fulfill its true nature with such factors based on chance being the primary driver. True democracy is based on the presumption that all people can equally participate in society and government. The only way to do that is to take a Rawlsian approach of meeting legitimate expectations that arise only once the rules of the game are in place (Sandel, 2009).
In the real-world example of chronic disease and poverty, it is known that “people are sick because they are poor and become poorer because they are sick,” (Levy and Sidel, 2013, pg. 258). The proposed remedy for what Rawls would argue is a state of existence and misfortune based on chance, is by using the egalitarian difference principle to implement comprehensive policies that reach the poorest people preferentially and to develop global norms that benefit low-income countries disproportionately to those of higher income (Levy and Sidel, 2013, pg 264-265).

Ultimately, a Rawlsian approach would require finding a very delicate balance between egalitarian distributive justice and preservation of individual freedoms. If the scale is tipped too much to one side or the other, the door to further injustice would be opened.

Rawls: “Justice as fairness presents itself not as a conception of justice that is true, but one that can serve as a basis of informed and willing political agreement between citizens viewed as free and equal persons”.

People are already aware of the social and political realities that exist within societies. Rawls takes greater focus on these structures of society and how the benefits and burdens of society are distributed equally. His priority is not necessarily to discover the truth about justice, but instead, propose ideas for how social institutions ought to act when its citizens are free and equal. He proposes this as a hypothetical position. How these social institutions determine distribution of these benefits and burdens is what Rawls is trying to determine in terms of what is just or unjust.

I tend to agree with Rawl’s approach being more political instead of philosophical. I think it would be harder to gain support from members of society when determining what is just or what is fair distribution of benefits and burdens, with only philosophical or enlightened viewpoints, in which not everyone shares the same views. In a democratic society, competing ideas of what is good for all exist due to people having different beliefs and interests in a culturally diverse world. Rawls aims to convince us that the concept of justice can be better supported within a democratic society. His two primary principles support each person having equal rights to all basic liberties (such as freedom of speech), but also acknowledging that while inequalities inevitably continue to exist in a democratic society, these inequalities should work to benefit everyone, including the disadvantaged.
These ideas help us to better understand Rawl’s idea of justice as fairness. He maintains basic rights and liberties for all. A rationale person will accept that inequalities will continue to exist but is agreeable to these inequalities in a society that maintains fair opportunities for all.

Justice as fairness is an imaginary and a hypothetical conception where the people behind a “veil of ignorance” are ignorant of their status and future; and  would agree for “social contract” a  political  arrangement which can be considered as just, because all are equally ignorant and  have equal bargaining power.

Rawls argues that people faced with uncertainty in what they would be once the veil is removed, would not want to take any risk, and will avoid choosing a system which might make them a homeless person or a member of an oppressed minority. Instead, they would choose a world that would be best for everyone. By  “Justice as fairness, does not present itself as conception of justice that is true”,  Rawls means that  because of the concepts “original positions”, “veil of ignorance”, “social contract”,  the conception of justice as fairness may seem like abstract and philosophical and there by appears not true. Rawls gives explanation in his paper as to why these terms are not abstract or philosophical.

Rawls is not concerned with the philosophical system because as a practical matter no general or moral conception can provide a publicly recognized basis for conception of Justice in modern democratic state.  The theory of Rawls has three main components: first- it is to provide a practical and systematic conception of Justice for constitutional democracy; second-  specifies most appropriate principles for realizing the institutions of liberty and equality when citizens are regarded  as free and equal persons; third- the conception of justice that is alternative to the Utilitarianism.
Rawls argues that under a “veil of ignorance “a hypothetical situation where the people are ignorant of their status and the future, would choose two fundamental principles: the principle of equal liberties; second- the difference principle.  According to the principle of equal liberty, every person will have equal right to the liberties like political liberty, freedom of speech and assembly etc without any discrimination. Difference principle corrects the unequal distribution of talents and other inheritance by a principle that the rewards and successes of these talented persons will not belong to the talented alone but to be shared with those who lack similar talent or advantages.

According to Rawls, higher incomes and earnings by Judge Judy, Michael Jordan, Bill Gates and Letterman compared to a school teacher or a judicial judge  do not completely belong to them. According to Rawls, it is just to tax these persons at higher rate than others because they are not equal in their earnings. Rawls rejects other theories of distribution justice being arbitrary from moral point of view because:  Feudal system rewards based on birth which is an accident; Libertarianism promotes social or economic advantage; and   meritocratic - promotes natural talents and abilities.

I agree with the Rawls conception of justice because on two reasons: it ensures equality and liberty; and without existence of the society and the people who are not less talented,  Bill Gates or Michael Jordan would not have made so much money.